SOCIETY <strong>of</strong> BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE Rapid Communications Posters Friday, March 23, <strong>2007</strong> • 6:30 PM-8:00 PM • Poster Session C struggled with feelings <strong>of</strong> guilt, frustration, and fear <strong>of</strong> damaging their child’s self esteem, which complicated their efforts to make behavioral changes in their children. Conclusions: Parenting within the context <strong>of</strong> weight reduction is emotionally charged, and parents expressed a desire for empathetic guidance regarding “first steps” and where to start making healthy changes for their children. Unfortunately, some pediatric health pr<strong>of</strong>essionals may feel unprepared to address parenting issues. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Pamela W. Lee, PhD, Community & Family <strong>Medicine</strong>, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH, 03756; pamela.w.lee@dartmouth.edu 3471 EFFECTS OF PAIN CATASTROPHIZING ON ACUTE PAIN STIMULATION ARE MODERATED BY THE TENDENCY TO SUPPRESS THOUGHTS Wesley Gilliam, BA, Justin Matsuura, BA, Phillip Quartana, MA, Brandy Wolff, MA, Erika Grey, MA and John W. Burns, PhD Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Medicine</strong> and Science, North Chicago, IL. Studies show that people who tend to catastrophize about pain report greater pain intensity during pain than those who do not catastrophize. Pain catastrophizers may attempt to cope or control intrusive catastrophic thoughts and appraisals by suppressing them. According to an ironic process model, attempts to suppress catastrophic thoughts should make them paradoxically more salient. Thus, we expected pain intensity during and following acute pain induction to be greatest for those who tend to both catastrophize and suppress. 98 undergrads completed Wegner’s White Bear Suppression Inventory and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and completed a 4-min forearm ischemia pain task and a 2-min recovery. A Catastrophizing x Suppression x Period interaction was found [F(7,658)= 2.1; p 5.7;p’s3.3;p’s>.08). These findings suggest that pain catastrophizing leads to greater pain sensitivity during and following acute pain only among individuals who also tend to cope with catastrophic appraisals <strong>of</strong> pain by attempting to suppress them. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley Gilliam, BA, Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Medicine</strong> and Science, North Chicago, IL, 60064; wesley.gilliam@rfums.org 3472 THE EXPRESSION OF CATASTROPHIZING IN THE NATURAL WORD USE OF CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS Doerte U. Junghaenel, PhD, 1 Stefan Schneider, Dipl.Psych. 2 and Joan E. Broderick, PhD 1 1 Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY and 2 Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. The communal model suggests that pain catastrophizing serves the function <strong>of</strong> eliciting support through exaggerated pain expression. Previous research has demonstrated that catastrophizers communicate their distress through non-verbal behavioral cues. ~ 122 ~ By contrast, the present research examined how catastrophizing is directly expressed in people’s habitual vocabulary. Chronic pain patients (n = 73; mean age = 52 years, 52% female, 85% White) completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and were asked to write about their life with the condition and their deepest thoughts and feelings associated with it. Essays were examined via computerized text analysis, counting the frequency <strong>of</strong> words related to negative emotions (anxiety, sadness, anger), positive emotions, and cognitive mechanisms (causation, insight). Patients with high PCS scores used fewer positive emotion words (r = -.32, p < .01), and wrote about their pain using more words <strong>of</strong> sadness (r = .30, p = .01) and anger (r = .25, p < .05) than those with low PCS scores. Words pertaining to insight moderated the associations between emotion words and catastrophizing: the use <strong>of</strong> negative emotion words was most strongly related to high PCS scores (interaction term β = .48, p < .01), and the use <strong>of</strong> positive emotion words was most strongly related to low PCS scores (β = -.39, p < .10) in those patients who expressed a high degree <strong>of</strong> insight. Pain severity (r = .34, p < .01) and neuroticism (r = .40, p < .001) were also correlated with catastrophizing, together explaining 23% <strong>of</strong> the variance in PCS scores. Nevertheless, the combination <strong>of</strong> word categories still explained additional 15% in PCS scores when controlling for these global health indices in multiple regression. The results suggest that the words patients use are a unique marker <strong>of</strong> their tendency to catastrophize in response to their chronic pain. This may prove useful for understanding the social communicative nature <strong>of</strong> catastrophizing, and how this coping strategy is developed and maintained in everyday life. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Doerte U. Junghaenel, PhD, Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8790; djunghae@notes.cc.sunysb.edu 3473 THE PERCEPTION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPATION Laura J. Peterson, MPH, Dow-Ann Yeh, Candidate BS, Brittany M. Brothers, MA, Sharon E. Kim, BA, Lisa M. Thornton, PhD and Barbara L. Andersen, PhD Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Understanding the perceptions <strong>of</strong> those who participate in clinical research is critical to recruitment efforts. Previous research found participants perceived medical/social benefits and a desire to give back to society. Decision theory postulates that one will participate if expected benefits outweigh costs. We created a measure to collect reasons for participation in the context <strong>of</strong> a study <strong>of</strong> gynecological cancer survivors. Sociodemographic data were also collected. Women were survivors <strong>of</strong> endometrial(51%), ovarian(27%), cervical(18%) and vulvar cancer(4%). Overall accrual rate was 88%. The sample (N=208) was primarily Caucasian(95%), with some college (M=14 years), and mean age 56 (SD=12years). The median household income was $48,000. Based on an extensive literature review, we generated a 15-item measure assessing reasons for participation. Participants responded on a four-point Likert-type scale (1=Strongly disagree;4=Strongly agree). An exploratory factor analysis yielded a two factor solution that showed a reasonable fit(RMSEA=.062). We named Factor 1 “Costs” (Cronbach’s alpha=.867). An example for “Costs” is “This study will take too much time to complete.” We named Factor 2 “Benefits” (Cronbach’s
<strong>2007</strong> SBM Annual Meeting & Scientific Sessions March 21-24, <strong>2007</strong> FINAL PROGRAM Rapid Communications Posters Friday, March 23, <strong>2007</strong> • 6:30 PM-8:00 PM • Poster Session C alpha=.821). An example for “Benefits” is “Participating in this study will help future patients.” Two items, “This study seems easy to do” and “The written information was hard to understand” were discarded as they failed to load on either Factor. The Factors were positively correlated (r=.502,p
Change language